Errors Of Jerald & Sandra Tanner's Mormonism

[urroner]

Neighbor said, quite plainly:

t's better to . . . wast[e] your time [than] to . . .believe . . . [ that t]he words of Jesus are imperrishable.

proving he believes in a different Jesus, whose words are not imperrishable. He is so unshriven that he'd rather waste his time than believe in the Biblical Jesus.

What, neighbor said that!!!! I am totally appalled, but his words can not be denied nor will they perish and here I was thinking that neighbor was a Christian.

I'm shock I say, I'm totally shocked!

[MorningStar]

Neighbor said, quite plainly:

t's better to . . . wast[e] your time [than] to . . .believe . . . [ that t]he words of Jesus are imperrishable.

proving he believes in a different Jesus, whose words are not imperrishable. He is so unshriven that he'd rather waste his time than believe in the Biblical Jesus.

What, neighbor said that!!!! I am totally appalled, but his words can not be denied nor will they perish and here I was thinking that neighbor was a Christian.

I'm shock I say, I'm totally shocked!

I CAN'T BELIEVE HE SAID THAT! LET'S WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT!!!!

[Dale]

Opaline Sandra Tanner & her husband have an assurance of salvation. God was either the source or the devil himself. I see no hope for that couple beyond the limited time offered for humans.(Hebrews 9:27) The clock is ticking they are either saved from hell or are destined for outer darkness.(Matthew 7:13,14) I doubt the interpretation of Doctrine And Covenants section 76 that the vast majority of mankind will be saved from hell. The view has D.&C. 76 clash with Matthew 7:13,14. Somebody has to tell them the cold truth that either they are under grace or under law. Why would anybody want the Tanners to go to outer darkness? Why would anybody not want them to recieve the warnings they need to get?

I am concerned about them. I am concerned about where they will spend eternity. I am concerned about them being happy or sad. I didn't say anything about them to be mean. A lot of people think they are saved who are not.

Sincerely,

Dale

----------

Rongo,

On the Tanners editorial practices I hear they are sincere. It's highly possible they think they didn't manipulate statements through out of context quotations. Of course if they know that it's an issue among some readers then silence is not a good policy. They should be defending themselves. On the one hand I don't want to discuss their character. On the other hand I want to say I dislike what they do & how they do it.

The mis reading of First Vision quotes via elipses suggests they misunderstood the whole quote. Why should I let them interpret the Bible for me?

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

I read your quote and will comment later in full when I get some time, theres allot of data to type out. But, doesn't your full quote have Brigham sayng the Lord did send His "angel"..." But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day..."

Please Re-read your quote,

Much more later

Mark

John 1;12

[rongo]

<Sigh>

Here's the beginning of their mass mailing:

"It has recently been discovered that the teaching that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 was not a part of early church doctrine until after the death of Brigham Young.  Instead, the leaders of the church taught that it was only angels that appeared to him in 1820.  Brigham Young said, "The Lord did not come . . . But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., . . . and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong . . ." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 171)  The apostle Orson Hyde said, "Some one may say, 'If this work of the last days be true, why did not the Savior come himself to communicate this intelleligence to the world?'  Because to the angels was committed the power of reaping the earth, and it was committed to none else." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 335)

One excuse that has been offered for these statements by the early church leaders is that they simply did not understand Joseph Smith's story . . ."

1. Brigham Young died in 1877. We are agreed on this, right?

2. Here is the Tanners' version of Young's statement:

"The Lord did not come . . . But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith jun., . . . and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong . . ."

3. Here is Young's actual statement, without the Tanners' ommisions:

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him.

4. Let me walk you through how their manipulated version is blatantly dishonest, not just sloppy. Their version is constructed so as to make it appear that Brigham Young said that the Lord did not come to Joseph Smith AT ALL (sorry, couldn't resist using the Tanner system of all caps, bold, and underlining!) For those who would deny that this is the intent of their manipulated version, please recall that the purpose of this mailer was to convince people that "it has recently been discovered that the teaching that God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 was not a part of early church doctrine until after the death of Brigham Young." The whole purpose of this was shock value.

5. This claim was patently false, and the Tanners knew this when they wrote it. The "orthodox" Mormon version was written between 1838 and 1842, and this is the version in the Pearl of Great Price. They knew that the standard Mormon "party line" was well-established decades before Brigham Young's death, as evidenced by their support for the theory that the official First Vision account was hammered out between 1838 and 1842. So why do they claim here that the standard version "was not a part of early church doctrine until after the death of Brigham Young?" You are defending their honesty and integrity; perhaps you would like to comment on this? Also, their claim that their shocking finding "has recently been discovered" in the 1960's is interesting, since they are quoting sources that were available and read since the 1850's.

6. Let me walk you through Young's actual statement (you may refer to it above). Young refers to both the First Vision and Moroni's appearance to Joseph Smith, and he emphasizes that they parallel "the days of our Savior," in that God didn't communicate with "eminent divines . . . of the so-called orthodoxy." He then says that the Lord did not come (here is where the Tanners abruptly stop the tape), neither did "His messengers" come, "in power and great glory," "with the armies of heaven," etc. In other words, just as Christ didn't come with the fanfare and great display that the Pharisees and Zelotes expected him to come, the Lord and his messengers didn't appear to Joseph Smith in a dazzling display that the world at large would witness.

Here's the key part: "But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." Notice carefully the "and," which the Tanners for their purposes treat grammatically as a "who:"

"But He did send His angel to [Joseph Smith], who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, AND informed him . . ."

The Tanners seek to convey the impression that Young said:

"But He did send His angel to [Joseph Smith], who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, WHO informed him . . ."

In a nutshell, the verb "informed" goes with "He," not angel. That is, "He" informed Joseph, not the angel.

Here, Brigham Young is referring to both of Joseph Smith's great visions that began the restoration and the beginning of the dispensation of the fullness of times.

I can't wait for Markk's, or anyone else's attempt to spin the Tanners out of this one!

[MorningStar]

Hi Rongo!

The pastor I talked about earlier shared that butchered Brigham Young "quote" with me a few weeks ago. I showed him the original quote and how the Tanners purposely edited it to deceive people, and he still continued to cut and paste from the Tanners like crazy.

(sigh)

MorningStar

[Zakuska]

You mean "Pastor Roc"? Is he on a cut and paste rampage again?

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

First I dont have the mailer so I don't now the full context, is it just as you have typed out or is there more, please provide the whole mailer if possible so I can read it in context. But anyway from what I can see the Tanner's have not deceived in anyway. On page 154 of S&R, the book in question for this thread pretty much the same quote ( minus the last sentence ) under:

"Source of Confusion."

But as it was in the days of our Savior, so was it in the advent of this new dispensation. It was not in accordance with the notions, traditions, and pre-conceived ideas of the American people. The messenger did not come to an eminent divine of any of the so-called orthodoxy, he did not adopt their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; (Journal of discourses) (I paste dyour quote for times sake minus the last part)

This does say that the Lord did not come but sent a angel, who afterwards became a prophet.

You said:

4. Let me walk you through how their manipulated version is blatantly dishonest, not just sloppy. Their version is constructed so as to make it appear that Brigham Young said that the Lord did not come to Joseph Smith AT ALL (sorry, couldn't resist using the Tanner system of all caps, bold, and underlining!)

The problem here is that BY did say that the Lord did not come and instead sent a angel. Where does this say either God, the Lord, or the Father, or Jesus came, it says that the Lord sent a angel.

John Taylor understood this when he said "...when the prophet joseph smith asked the angel which of the sects was right that he might join it. the answer was that none of them are right. What, none of them? No. We will stop to argue that question; the angel merely told him to join none of them that none of them were right." (JOD, vol. 20 p.167)

The above quote by BY was in 1855, this quote was after BY death in 1879. It is clear that this is the same account of the 1st vision that BY told over 20 years earlier. Taylor used the word "angel" twice, and makes it clear he was saying Joseph asked the angel and that the angel answered Joesph's question.

George A. Smith (first presidency) said;

..." he (JS) went humbly before the Lord and inquired of Him, and the Lord answered his prayers, and revealed to Joseph, by the ministration of angels, the true condition of the religious world. When the holy angel appeared, Joseph inquired which of these denominations was right and which he should join, and was told they were all wrong.-..."( JoD, vol. 12, pages 333-334)

Herber Kimball wrote in the JOD vol. 6, page 29 the following;

" Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come Himself and call...Why did he not come along? because he has agents to attend to his buisness, and he sits upon his throneand is established at head-quarters, and tellsthis man, Go and do this;" and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that."

There are more quotes like this if you like, from the like of BY,Talor, Woodruff, all showing that it was angel/s that came to JS, Not God nor Jesus.

Rongo, these are all LDS quotes by LDS leaders, nothing made up, hidden, of false. The Tanner aren't being "blatantly dishonest" as you calimed, they have given much doucumentaion, written and spoken by LDS prophets and apostles, and JS family, that there was much confusion in the early church as to who and what JS claimed to see in the grove.

You wrote:

5. This claim was patently false, and the Tanners knew this when they wrote it. The "orthodox" Mormon version was written between 1838 and 1842, and this is the version in the Pearl of Great Price. They knew that the standard Mormon "party line" was well-established decades before Brigham Young's death, as evidenced by their support for the theory that the official First Vision account was hammered out between 1838 and 1842. So why do they claim here that the standard version "was not a part of early church doctrine until after the death of Brigham Young?" You are defending their honesty and integrity; perhaps you would like to comment on this? Also, their claim that their shocking finding "has recently been discovered" in the 1960's is interesting, since they are quoting sources that were available and read since the 1850's

.

If this is true, then why did LDS prophets and apostles teach different after these dates? The Tanner's were correct in writing about this confusion, they did not lie or cheat.

As much stuff as the Tanners have written, they are bound just by shear numbers to be incorrect on something, and if they incorrectly write something wrong, then they are that, wrong, not liars and cheaters, and I'll be th efirst to say so. The book S&R is solid, an I understand there are some subjective arguments in it, but by and large it is fact, and even if you don't like what the past LDS leaders wrote, don't take it out on the Tanners personally, debate what they say, not them as people.

Mark

John 1;12

[MorningStar]

You mean "Pastor Roc"? Is he on a cut and paste rampage again?

He finally stopped after a while. I think you missed the time when I googled his posts and all of them were from the Tanners. I said, "I see you've been cutting and pasting again. And it's from the Tanners!" Then I told him he should give some references and stop taking credit for their writings. Not too long after that, he and another poster were talking about the Bible Answer Man and the time Richard Abanes was on there. Shortly after that, Pastor ROC gave this heart-felt speech about how he knew we believed in Jesus and that he wasn't going to argue LDS doctrine anymore. Then he started again after you came in the other night. Then I said, "What happened to your speech about how you weren't going to argue LDS doctrine anymore?" Then we had a few words and I told him how we believed there would be no salvation for anyone without the atonement of Jesus Christ. He said, "Wow! I agree with you 100%, but I don't think that reflects LDS teachings." After that, I posted some things to him in the largest font available and told him I wasn't in the mood for watching him bear false witness anymore. I guess he doesn't recall the last 5 times I made that statement to him.

[Markk]

Hi MorningStar,

Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing? Wyatt does it here, as did Rongo, CI, and others in this thread alone, this whole site and others like it are largely cut and pasted, unless one has exceptional typing skills. If this person is claiming that this is his material then he has a problem, and should correct that, but thats another issue, the bottom line is, or at least should be is the context of the cut and paste. Your deverting the issue of the context of the paste and turning it into your basis for argument ( the paste it's self).

Why don't you quote some of his pastes and lets see if what he quotes is true of not? Do you want to know the truth? ( a honest question) Are you strong enough to test your faith? I'ts not always easy, infact it's very difficult.

Mark

John 1:12

[MorningStar]

Hi MorningStar,

Whats wrong with cutting and pasteing? Wyatt does it here, as did Rongo, CI, and others in this thread alone, this whole site and others like it are largely cut and pasted, unless one has exceptional typing skills. If this person is claiming that this is his material then he has a problem, and should correct that, but thats another issue, the bottom line is, or at least should be is the context of the cut and paste. Your deverting the issue of the context of the paste and turning it into your basis for argument ( the paste it's self).

Why don't you quote some of his pastes and lets see if what he quotes is true of not? Do you want to know the truth? ( a honest question) Are you strong enough to test your faith? I'ts not always easy, infact it's very difficult.

Mark

John 1:12

Hi Mark,

This guy cuts and pastes as if he wrote it himself. I kept asking him, "What site did you get that from?" He said, "I did my own research." Then I googled what he was posting and it was paragraphs from the Tanners taken word for word.

Am I strong enough to test my faith? Heck yeah! I do it all the time! I am so buff!

MorningStar

[Markk]

Hi MS

Can you see, by the posts on the first vision, that the leadership was confused as to who JS claimed to see in the grove. I didn't give all the dates or quotes, but these quotes go well into the late 1800's.

Mark

John 1;12

[rongo]

Thanks for the reply, Markk!

The irony of the Tanners' chosen title, "Mormonism: Shadow or Reality" is their insistence that orthodox Mormonism is but a shadow of the reality of what Mormons actually teach, believe, and practice. This is ironic because their voluminous evidence is demonstrably but a shadow of the verifiable reality evident in their sources. Your quotes from the Tanners above provide an excellent backdrop for examining this. Let me explain.

(For the record, I am a copy-and-paster, not a phenomenal typist. My high-water mark was 35 words per minute in high school, and it's been all downhill from there. As such, feel free to PM or email me your mailing address, and I would be happy to send you a copy of the Tanner mailer in question. It's only a page long, but I'd rather swallow glass than type it all out).

You said:

The problem here is that BY did say that the Lord did not come and instead sent a angel. Where does this say either God, the Lord, or the Father, or Jesus came, it says that the Lord sent a angel.

I think you're adding the word "instead," aren't you? The body of the quote is in several posts in this thread. Brigham Young was referring to both of the great appearances that began the Restoration: the First Vision, and Moroni.

That Brigham Young freely blended these two together as one was not confusion on his part, but a common approach in those days, as the quotes you provided show. These quotes (which you got from the Tanners) DO NOT demonstrate that the Brethren were confused by conflicting First Vision accounts, as you suggest, for reasons that I will get into shortly. They simply demonstrate that they weren't nearly as precise in distinguishing between the First Vision and Moroni's appearance(s) as we are today. Nor did they use the First Vision as a key argument for the corporeality of God, as we Mormons tend to do today. But to argue that the standard orthodox First Vision account was not established until decades and decades after 1842 is ridiculous. It also runs counter to the Tanners' key argument that the First Vision account was hammered out in the late 1830's-early 1840's, which I noticed you didn't deal with (conspicuously, I thought). As much as they would like to have it both ways, they really can't have Joseph Smith and the Brethren deciding on the details then, and yet try to take advantage of later isolated imprecise statements that they claim demonstrate confusion and unsettlement about the First Vision.

You (following the Tanners) fall into a trap when you try to exploit these isolated imprecise statements while ignoring (or being unaware of) the many, many statements by these same brethren that correctly give the First Vision account. You have certainly not read Journal of Discourses; the Tanners certainly have; hence, they are really the ones being dishonest in their cherry-picking of isolated quotes, since they have to have been aware of the quotes that undermine the ones they selected by virtue of their having found the ones they use.

For example, you cite a John Taylor statement from 1879, where he referred to the Lord as "an angel." You conclude from this that John Taylor was unaware of the standard orthodox First Vision account as late as 1879. But someone who has read Journal of Discourses can easily find many more statements of John Taylor where he used what you consider to be "the right terminology."

Elder John Taylor, Salt Lake City, October 7, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:322

What could the Lord do with such a pack of ignorant fools as we were? There was one man that had a little good sense and a spark of faith in the promises of God, and that was Joseph Smith---a backwoods man. He believed a certain portion of Scripture which said---"If any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not." He was fool enough in the eyes of the world, and wise enough in the eyes of God and angels and all true intelligence, to go into a secret place to ask God for wisdom, believing that God would hear him. The Lord did hear him, and told him what to do.

Don't you think it's even just a little bit dishonest to withhold this quote, while holding forth the one you (by way of the Tanners) gave as evidence of John Taylor's confusion about the First Vision?

Similarly, you quote George A. Smith stating that Joseph inquired of a "holy angel." He also said:

Elder George A. Smith, Ogden City, November 15, 1864. Journal of Discourses 11:1

When the Lord appeared to Joseph Smith and manifested unto him a knowledge pertaining to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the work of the last days, Satan came also with his power and tempted Joseph . . . In the very commencement of this Work, the Prophet Joseph Smith was called upon to contend face to face with the powers of darkness by spiritual manifestations, and open visions, as well as with men in the flesh, stirred up by the same spirit of the adversary to edge up his way and destroy him from the earth, and annihilate the work which he was about to commence. He thus describes the incident . . . (then follows a verbatim excerpt from the 1838 account in today's Pearl of Great Price---rongo)

Your quote/the Tanners' quote from Heber C. Kimball is something else! You really need to gain a healthy distrust for their ellipses (. . .) and lack of context. You/the Tanners try to wrest this (as with the Brigham Young quote in question)into having Brother Heber say that "God did not come Himself and call . . ." Now ask yourself: What are the ellipses replacing, and why was the full quote not included?

Heber C. Kimball, November 8, 1857.  Journal of Discourses 6:29

Do you not see God is not pleased with any man except those that receive the gifts, and treasure them up, and practise upon those gifts? And he gives those gifts, and confers them upon you, and will have us to practise upon them. Now, these principles to me are plain and simple.

Do you suppose that God in person called upon Joseph Smith, our Prophet? God called upon him; but God did not come himself and call, but he sent Peter to do it. Do you not see? He sent Peter and sent Moroni to Joseph, and told him that he had got the plates. Did God come himself? No: he sent Moroni and told him there was a record . . .

. . . Well, when this took place, Peter came along to him and gave power and authority, and, says he, "You go and baptise Oliver Cowdery, and then ordain him a Priest." He did it, and do you not see his works were in exercise? Then Oliver, having authority, baptised Joseph and ordained him a Priest. Do you not see the works, how they manifest themselves?

Well, then Peter comes along. Why did not God come? He sent Peter, do you not see? Why did he not come along? Because he has agents to attend to his business, and he sits upon his throne and is established at head-quarters, and tells this man, "Go and do this;" and it is behind the vail just as it is here. You have got to learn that.

Long and short of it: Brother Heber was discussing why God didn't come and ordain Joseph or come to tell him about the plates. He sent authorized representatives. He did NOT say that God didn't come AT ALL (in fact, even in the Tanners's version, he says that "God called upon him," but their ellipses placement is clearly meant to make it look like he said that "God did not come Himself and call.") Their ommission of the mentions of Peter are dishonest and unconscionable.

You wrote:

Rongo, these are all LDS quotes by LDS leaders, nothing made up, hidden, or false. The Tanners aren't being "blatantly dishonest" as you claimed, they have given much documentation, written and spoken by LDS prophets and apostles, and JS family, that there was much confusion in the early church as to who and what JS claimed to see in the grove.

But what they conceal from the reader is blatantly dishonest, and undermines their claim of confusion among Church leaders. It is also not an accurate picture of what they taught.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, March 3, 1861. Journal of Discourses 8:354

The Lord chose Joseph Smith, called upon him at fourteen years of age, gave him visions, and led him along, guided and directed him in his obscurity until he brought forth the plates and translated them, and Martin Harris was prevailed upon to sustain the printing of the Book of Mormon.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, August 31, 1862. Journal of Discourses 9:366

This whole people were cast out for believing that God spake to Joseph Smith and chose him to be his messenger---his Apostle---to this generation . . . Joseph Smith testified that he had received revelations from God, that holy angels had administered to him, that he had seen the heavens opened, had seen Jesus Christ and knew that he lived, and that all the people must acknowledge him to be the Christ, the Saviour of the world, and to obtain salvation through him must obey his ordinances, keep inviolate their covenants with him and with each other, and try with all their might to restore the covenants broken by the fathers, that the celestial gates leading to the presence of God may be opened to all believers.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, June 4, 1864. Journal of Discourses 10:303

The Lord had not spoken to the inhabitants of this earth for a long time, until He spoke to Joseph Smith, committed to him the plates on which the Book of Mormon was engraved, and gave him a Urim and Thummim to translate a portion of them, and told him to print the Book of Mormon, which he did, and sent it to the world, according to the word of the Lord.

President Brigham Young, Great Salt Lake City, June 23rd, 1867. Journal of Discourses 12:67

When the Lord called upon Joseph he was but a boy---a child, only about fourteen years of age. He was not filled with traditions; his mind was not made up to this, that, or the other. I very well recollect the reformation which took place in the country among the various denominations of Christians---the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others---when Joseph was a boy. Joseph's mother, one of his brothers, and one, if not two, of his sisters were members of the Presbyterian Church, and on this account the Presbyterians hung to the family with great tenacity.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, September 1, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:243

I have flattered myself, if I am as faithful as I know how to be to my God, and my brethren, and to all my covenants, and faithful in the discharge of my duty, when I have lived to be as old as was Moses when the Lord appeared to him, that perhaps I then may hold communion with the Lord, as did Moses. I am not now in that position, though I know much more than I did twenty, ten, or five years ago. But have I yet lived to the state of perfection that I can commune in person with the Father and the Son at my will and pleasure? No,---though I hold myself in readiness that he can wield me at his will and pleasure. If I am faithful until I am eighty years of age, perhaps the Lord will appear to me and personally dictate me in the management of his Church and people. A little over twenty years, and if I am faithful, perhaps I will obtain that favour with my Father and God.

I am not to obtain this privilege at once or in a moment. True, Joseph Smith in his youth had revelations from God. He saw and understood for himself. Are you acquainted with his life? You can read the history of it. I was acquainted with him during many years. He had heavenly visions; angels administered to him. The vision of his mind was opened to see and understand heavenly things. He revealed the will of the Lord to the people, and yet but few were really acquainted with brother Joseph.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, June 3, 1860. Journal of Discourses 8:66

The Lord has led this people from the beginning. From the day that Joseph obtained the plates, and previous to that time, the Lord dictated him. He directed him day by day and hour by hour.

President Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, July 15, 1860. Journal of Discourses 8:122

A man, though he has not received authority from heaven, but is convinced by the light he has received that the nations have wandered far from God, and that his associates---members of the same professions or community---are not walking according to the revelations given in the New Testament, rises up and declares that he feels bound in his faith and conscience to go forth and raise up a pure church unto Christ. He goes forth and preaches to the people, calling upon them to be Saints of the Most High. He calls upon the people to return to the Lord with all their hearts---to become truly the children of God by faith---teaches many good and wholesome principles, many of the commandments of the Lord, and the revelations given in the New Testament, knowing nothing further. Revival after revival and seceder after seceder follow in the footsteps of the reformer. He professes to teach purer and holier doctrine than has been taught; and the question arises, Who is under obligation to obey that man's mandate? The Lord has not called him; Jesus has not appeared to him; Peter, James, and John have not met with him and conferred upon him the keys of the holy Priesthood; he has no communication with the heavens, only through the spirit of conviction.

Elder Orson Pratt, Salt Lake City, August 14, 1859. Journal of Discourses 7:220

When, where, and how were you, Joseph Smith, first called? How old were you? and what were you qualifications? I was between fourteen and fifteen years of age. Had you been to college? No. Had you studied in any seminary of learning? No. Did you know how to read? Yes. How to write? Yes. Did you understand much about arithmetic? No. About grammar? No. Did you understand all the branches of education which are generally taught in our common schools? No. But yet you say the Lord called you when you were but fourteen or fifteen years of age? How did he call you? I will give you a brief history as it came from his own mouth. I have often heard him relate it.

He was wrought upon by the Spirit of God, and felt the necessity of repenting of his sins and serving God. He retired from his father's house a little way, and bowed himself down in the wilderness, and called upon the name of the Lord. He was inexperienced, and in great anxiety and trouble of mind in regard to what church he should join. He had been solicited by many churches to join with them, and he was in great anxiety to know which was right. He pleaded with the Lord to give him wisdom on the subject; and while he was thus praying, he beheld a vision, and saw a light approaching him from the heavens; and as it came down and rested on the tops of the trees, it became more glorious; and as it surrounded him, his mind was immediately caught away from beholding surrounding objects. In this cloud of light he saw two glorious personages; and one, pointing to the other, said, "Behold my beloved son! hear ye him." Then he was instructed and informed in regard to many things pertaining to his own welfare, and commanded not to unite himself to any of those churches. He was also informed that at some future time the fulness of the Gospel should be made manifest to him, and he should be an instrument in the hands of God of laying the foundation of the kingdom of God.

Orson Pratt, Salt Lake City, February 24th, 1869. Journal of Discourses 12:354

When did the Lord first manifest Himself to this man? Read our history if you wish to understand all the particulars; on this occasion I shall barely refer you to the early history of this Church, in print. The Lord revealed Himself to that person, not in his manhood, but in his youth. We have heard much said, by those who know nothing of the matter, about "old Joe Smith." How old was Joseph Smith when the Lord first manifested Himself to him? He was about fourteen years and four months old . . . What were the circumstances that enabled him to have manifestations from Heaven at that early period of his life?. . . When he was about fourteen years old there was what is called a religious revival or reformation in the neighborhood in which he lived . . . First one and then another of the different persuasions would come and converse with him and try to influence him to join his lot with them; and seeing so much confusion, each sect claiming that they were the true people of God, he became at a loss what to do. He occasionally devoted an hour, when his labors on the farm would permit, to reading the Bible, and while doing so his eyes happened to fall on a certain passage of scripture, recorded in the epistle of James, which says that if any man lack wisdom let him ask of God who giveth liberally to all men and upbraideth not. Now this youth, this "old Joe Smith," that we have heard so much about, was just simple enough to believe that that passage really meant what it said. He went out into a little grove near his father's house, in the town of Manchester, Ontario County, State of New York, and there he knelt down in all the simplicity of a child and prayed to the Father in the name of Jesus that He would show him which, among all the churches, was the true one. Said he, "show me, Father, who are in possession of the truth, let me know, O Lord, the right way, and I will walk therein

[MorningStar]

Hi MS

Can you see, by the posts on the first vision, that the leadership was confused as to who JS claimed to see in the grove. I didn't give all the dates or quotes, but these quotes go well into the late 1800's.

Mark

John 1;12

Refer to Rongo's post. The leaders weren't confused, but the people who believe the Tanners' book are ...

TESTIMONY STILL IN TACT!!!!!

MorningStar

[Young Reformer]

Who are the Tanner's anyway?

[MorningStar]

Who are the Tanner's anyway?

They're these people who write fiction.

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

I to am not a typest, worse than you.

Your missing a major point and building a case on thin air in that the quotes quoted are from the section intitled "Source of Confusion", this is one of 18 sections with in this chapter. If you have read the book you would have known that the Tanners cover the fact that JS claimed also to be visited by "personages" and the"Father and Jesus"., over 20 pages with the updated 87 notes.

They write on the first page " JS offical account of his first vision and the visits of the angel Moroni was written in 1838 and first published in the times and seasons in 1842 ( Era 1961) ( quoting nibley) (I wrote JS to save time)

They also quote Josephs handwritten copy which says that it was the Lord, I believe it it just says Lord, not anything about the father. It says something to the effect that the Lord open the heavens and JS saw the Lord. It sound more like Stephens vision that the POGP account.

They also quote Smith himself saying it was angels as reported in the Desert news on may 29 1852, which was later changed in the History of the church and the word angels removed.

They speak of the many different ages that JS was in the different versions, and the revisons made to the story.

They quote Pratts 1852 version with both the Father and the Son.

The point being there is really confusion becaus eof the many stories going around back then, the tanners never disputed and actually quoted that the "offical version" is as it is today.

This is what I wrote towards the end of my last post to you.

If this is true, then why did LDS prophets and apostles teach different after these dates? The Tanner's were correct in writing about this confusion, they did not lie or cheat.

Whether you like it or not there is confusion.

They also quote Mormon writer Richard Bushman in saying ..."some Church members in the early years may have been unaware of the actual idenity of the heavenly visitors." page 154 for full context and reference.

You wrote:

That Brigham Young freely blended these two together as one was not confusion on his part, but a common approach in those days, as the quotes you provided show. These quotes (which you got from the Tanners) DO NOT demonstrate that the Brethren were confused by conflicting First Vision accounts, as you suggest, for reasons that I will get into shortly. They simply demonstrate that they weren't nearly as precise in distinguishing between the First Vision and Moroni's appearance(s) as we are today.

Thats just not true, most of the quotes I chose stated that the angel said not to join any other sect, Moroni never said that. One quote also used the verse from James. These are not blended stories about Moroni, thats is just not true. JS own brother is quoted as saying when JS went into the "woods" and it was angel that appeared to Him, he also said that the angel appeared to him again in the field the next day

The point is there are several versions, all different, and all confusing, just trying to sort through it all is very confusing, and that is there point, there are many versions of the vision and the one excepted is not even the hand written version by Joseph. We havent even got into the different ages and the revival and changes.

More later

Mark

John 1:12

[Markk]

Hi Young Reformer,

how old are you?

Mark

John 1:12

[rongo]

Here's an early influential and important First Vision account from Orson Pratt's pamphlet "An Interesting Account of Several Remarkable Visions." Published in 1840 in Liverpool, England, it describes both the First Vision and the appearances of Moroni, and is the earliest standard First Vision account I can find. Here we have the standard version being preached WELL before 1877. Here is the portion relevant to our topic (with ellipses properly used to shorten the already long excerpt):

Mr. Joseph Smith, Jr., who made the following important discovery, was born in the town of Sharon, Windsor County, Vermont, on the 23rd of December, A. D. 1805 . . . When somewhere about fourteen or fifteen years old, he began seriously to reflect upon the necessity of being prepared for a future state of existence; but how, or in what way, to prepare himself was a question as yet undetermined in his own mind . . . He accordingly commenced, perusing the sacred pages of the Bible with sincerity, believing the things that he read. His mind soon caught hold of the following passage: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." . . . This was cheering information to him, tidings that gave him great joy. It was like a light shining forth in a dark place to guide him to the path in which he should walk. He now saw that if he inquired of God there was not only a possibility but a probability; yea, more a certainty that he should obtain a knowledge which of all the doctrines was the doctrine of Christ, and which of all the churches was the church of Christ. He, therefore, retired to a secret place in a grove but a short distance from his father's house, and knelt down and began to call upon the Lord.

At first, he was severely tempted by the powers of darkness which endeavored to overcome him. But he continued to seek for deliverance until darkness gave way from his mind and he was enabled to pray, in fervency of the spirit and in faith. And, while thus pouring out his soul, anxiously desiring an answer from God, he at length saw a very bright and glorious light in the heavens above; which at first, seemed to be at a considerable distance. He continued praying, while the light appeared to be gradually descending towards him; and as it drew nearer, it increased in brightness and magnitude so that by the time that it reached the tops of the trees, the whole wilderness for some distance around was illuminated in a most glorious and brilliant manner. He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed as soon as the light came in contact with them; but, perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hopes of being able to endure its presence.

It continued descending slowly until it rested upon the earth and he was enveloped in the midst of it. When it first came upon him, it produced a peculiar sensation throughout his whole system; and immediately, his mind was caught away from the natural objects with which he was surrounded; and he was enrapt in a heavenly vision, and saw two glorious personages who exactly resembled each other in their features or likeness. He was informed that his sins were forgiven. He was also informed upon the subjects which had for some time previously agitated his mind, viz.---that all the religious denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines; and consequently, that none of them was acknowledged of God as His Church and Kingdom. And he was expressly commanded to go not after them, and he received a promise that the true doctrine---the fullness of the gospel_should at some future time be made known to him. After which the vision withdrew, leaving his mind in a state of calmness and peace indescribable.

This is crucial because it was one of the Church's influential tracts, and from 1840 to boot. Critics who insist that Church leaders were hopelessly confused and befuddled about the First Vision going into the 1880's must account for this. This is doubly the case because quotes from Orson Pratt from Journal of Discourses can be produced that are similar to the ones already given from Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Hyde, George A. Smith, etc., in that he apparently imprecisely refers to the First Vision beings as an angel or angels. Can one argue after reading his 1840 pamphlet that Orson Pratt did not know or was confused about the First Vision "party line" in the 1860's and 1870's? As with the others, his statements on the first vision (two of which I quoted above in the thread) were overwhelmingly "orthodox," an occasional anomaly here or there notwithstanding.

The question critics need to ask themselves is: If the Tanners had included the entire quotes without disembowelling them, would their argument have appeared effective or impotent? Was there a reason why the Young and Kimball quotes were gutted?

By the way, thanks for providing the Kimball quote, Markk. I had never seen that one before.

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

The fact is the Tanners have printed and talked much about all views, if you read S&R and then the Case vol. also by the Tanners you would see that they are very fair in showing both views, or for that matter the many diffrent views. So far the only quote that is taken out of context by the Tanners is the quote refering to Peter and Moroni, and even then if I quote them in full you would see that their point, but I would agree it is not a good quote. But...that doestn't make them evil, just wrong on that quote. All the other quotes are with in context and show there was confusion. I took the time last night and checked them all out in the JOD and there is no doubt that confusion was real, they are not out of context and I will print them here if you like. You did not respond to the points I made about JS saying they were angels, why would he say that. Why didn't he say so in the only hand written copy? The point and context of the Tanners is that everything just does not add up, and the church changing offical history after JS death makes one wonder.

Mark

John 1:12

[rongo]

Hi, Markk!

I addressed the "angel" issue by referring to anamolous accounts (the few exceptions) as "imprecise." Sure, Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, John Taylor, Brigham Young, George A. Smith, et. al. occassionally referred to angel(s) being in the First Vision, but they overwhelmingly gave the standard orthodox "party line" of the Father and the Son by a margin of 100 to one, in my view. They simply weren't precise in their emphasis on occasion, and modern-day critics pounce on these anamolies (I'm not sure I'm spelling that correctly!) as signs of confusion or "inventing the First Vision story" as they go.

Taking all of the First Vision accounts, from first to last, does not support the view that they were confused or unfamiliar with today's orthodox "party line." As I demonstrated above in this thread, the very men whom the Tanners hold up as giving heretical versions of the First Vision also gave orthodox ones (and in vastly greater numbers).

I haven't read the Tanners' "Case Against Mormonism." Do they honestly go into as much detail as I have in giving the pros and cons? I don't think so.

[rongo]

A new wrinkle to the question of the Tanners' integrity:

Is "all fair in love and war" when it comes to what I would consider dishonesty in some of the Tanners' "scoops?"

I'm thinking of them stealing the Kirtland Egyptian Papers microfilm from Church Archives (did they ever return the original after they published copies of it?) and using the film to misrepresent what was on the microfilm and how the papers on the film related to each other and the Book of Abraham.

Or their pubishing of copies of Elder McConkie's letter to Eugene England (with DO NOT DUPLICATE stamped on every page), which some undisclosed person delivered to them while England was out of the country? England first learned that his private letter was being published by the Tanners upon returning to the U.S.

Does behavior like this warrant charges of dishonesty or situational ethics? Is it OK in their case to apply "to the victor go the spoils?"

It seems to me that what Joseph Smith presented as a revelation from the Lord perfectly describes behavior like this (and justifications for it):

D&C 10:13, 25

For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you [in a lie---rongo's application of this passage to the issue] . . . Yea, [satan] saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him.

[Markk]

Hi Rongo,

If you want to start slinging mud then this thread will be smashed, should I bring up BY telling others the change in Lucy's history, without footnotes and saying something to the effect to destroy them ( the books). Or the church changing documents and supressing truth on purpose. There is much of that, are you ready to apply the same standards? Are you ready to go point by point with FAIR or FARMS and see how much they ignore to show of the "other side"? we would find the Tanners to be much more objective and fair.

The whole point of this thread is to take on the Tanners point by point in their book, and if we did do that objectivly we would find that they are right on most the time, and their subjective arguments are valid ones for the most part.

The Case and S&R both make it VERY clear that the Offical church take on the first vision is the Father and the Son, infact both spend much more time on the differnt aspects of the offical version than the "angel" versions. They debate the importace of the offical version is to prove that the LDS nature of God is true, because of this vision. To say that they are focusing on the angel versions is just not true and shows one hasn't read their work.

As far as the angel storys it is clear that there is/was allot of confusion and with JS himsef saying they were angels and the only hand written document says niether, confusion is abound and that is what the Tanner wrote, and like I said of the 20 some pages in the S&R, only 2 or 3 deal with the angel story while the rest is in debate on the offical account, the Case is even more complex to the Offical account.

If they Stole something that was wrong, and that is a sin, but I know they are not thiefs if that is what you are implying?(give me a reference), as fas as the McKonkie thing? I remember seeing the document, but I can't remember what it was related to, please refresh me on that one before I comment?

Anyway thanks for the time, I'm enjoying this conversation.

Mark

John 1:12

[lwyatt]

Hi Rongo,

If you want to start slinging mud then this thread will be smashed, should I bring up BY telling others the change in Lucy's history, without footnotes and saying something to the effect to destroy them ( the books). Or the church changing documents and supressing truth on purpose. There is much of that, are you ready to apply the same standards? Are you ready to go point by point with FAIR or FARMS and see how much they ignore to show of the "other side"? we would find the Tanners to be much more objective and fair.

The whole point of this thread is to take on the Tanners point by point in their book, and if we did do that objectivly we would find that they are right on most the time, and their subjective arguments are valid ones for the most part.

The Case and S&R both make it VERY clear that the Offical church take on the first vision is the Father and the Son, infact both spend much more time on the differnt aspects of the offical version than the "angel" versions. They debate the importace of the offical version is to prove that the LDS nature of God is true, because of this vision. To say that they are focusing on the angel versions is just not true and shows one hasn't read their work.

As far as the angel storys it is clear that there is/was allot of confusion and with JS himsef saying they were angels and the only hand written document says niether, confusion is abound and that is what the Tanner wrote, and like I said of the 20 some pages in the S&R, only 2 or 3 deal with the angel story while the rest is in debate on the offical account, the Case is even more complex to the Offical account.

If they Stole something that was wrong, and that is a sin, but I know they are not thiefs if that is what you are implying?(give me a reference), as fas as the McKonkie thing? I remember seeing the document, but I can't remember what it was related to, please refresh me on that one before I comment?

Anyway thanks for the time, I'm enjoying this conversation.

Mark

John 1:12

Why is there still so much confusion about this? All of these accusations, or "truths" told by the Tanners have been asked and answered time and again by many people, not just those here at FAIR or over at FARMS, or any other LDS affiliated group.

Even other Evangelical organizations and scholars are now starting to question the veracity and integrity of the Tanners work. Or are they too in the employ of the evil Mormon Church?

[Markk]

Hi Wyatt,

Why is there still so much confusion about this? All of these accusations, or "truths" told by the Tanners have been asked and answered time and again by many people, not just those here at FAIR or over at FARMS, or any other LDS affiliated group. 

Even other Evangelical organizations and scholars are now starting to question the veracity and integrity of the Tanners work. Or are they too in the employ of the evil Mormon Church?

Feel free to jump in and go point by point, please show me where all these points have been addressed? There are thousands of evangelical groups in this world, give me the precentage of the orgs. you speak of, I know of three names you will throw out, what about after them? Also of the three names you will throw out, or others, show me how they went point by point, I'd love to read there work?

Mark

John 1:12